The fact that climate change is not entirely human-driven does not negate anything about its human causes.

You set this thread up as presenting a great "blunder" on the scale of something that would bring down global warming theory, like how the Howard Dean "scream" brought down his Presidential candidacy. Yet global warming theory does not depend on the views of "David Rothschild." Global warming theory does not depend on what David Rothschild says, unlike how Howard Dead's candidacy depends in large part of what he says.

Everything else aside, no one is really amused by this "blunder" anyway.

Would you or MarcUK like to disclose what the percentage of the whole human influence is compared to the whole of all causes of "global warming"?

please provide information to back your claim.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Would you or MarcUK like to disclose what the percentage of the whole human influence is compared to the whole of all causes of "global warming"?

please provide information to back your claim.

Fellows

Its true that human CO2 emissions are small compared with most natural sources. By far a bigger release of CO2 comes from the ocean, by a factor of nearly 5 over the current level of human emissions. BUT that misses the point entirely. Natural sources are balanced by natural removal, (carbon sinks). The ocean sucks up the massive amount of CO2 it releases. Its evolved into a finely balanced equilibrium. If it hadnt, we wouldn't be here to talk about it!. However if the temperature keeps rising the ocean will be a net contributor to CO2 levels too, and then we really will be fucked, because warm water can hold less CO2 than cold water. And there is a whole hurt of CO2 and methane in the oceans ready to be released if the temperature keeps rising.

The preceeding half a million years have had an atmospheric co2 level of between 180 and 300 parts per million. But today they are at 380ppm and rising, this has occurred since the industrial revolution, ie the last 150 years. That is about a 30% rise that never occurred during the preceeding half a million years, that has occured in the last 150 years. There is no explanation for this other than human activity. Only a complete fool would deny that everything humans consume releases CO2 in one way or another.

So the problem is not whether human Co2 emissions are a small percentage of total natural emissions, the problem is that human Co2 emissions, have no natural balance to soak them up, and that is what has caused a 30% increase in atmospheric Co2 in about 150 years.

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

Fellows

Since when has evidence of falsity affected anything a politician says or does?

That being said, I bet 15 years after that quote was made, those numbers are different and I would be willing to bet that most scientists today believe in global warming and that humans are at least partly at fault.

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

A 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 66% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 10% disagreeing and the rest undecided. In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now."

George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post, September 3, 1992)

A 1993 publication by the Heartland Institute states: "A Gallup poll conducted on February 13, 1992 of members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society - the two professional societies whose members are most likely to be involved in climate research - found that 18 percent thought some global warming had occurred, 33 percent said insufficient information existed to tell, and 49 percent believed no warming had taken place."

Its true that human CO2 emissions are small compared with most natural sources. By far a bigger release of CO2 comes from the ocean, by a factor of nearly 5 over the current level of human emissions. BUT that misses the point entirely. Natural sources are balanced by natural removal, (carbon sinks). The ocean sucks up the massive amount of CO2 it releases. Its evolved into a finely balanced equilibrium. If it hadnt, we wouldn't be here to talk about it!. However if the temperature keeps rising the ocean will be a net contributor to CO2 levels too, and then we really will be fucked, because warm water can hold less CO2 than cold water. And there is a whole hurt of CO2 and methane in the oceans ready to be released if the temperature keeps rising.

The preceeding half a million years have had an atmospheric co2 level of between 180 and 300 parts per million. But today they are at 380ppm and rising, this has occurred since the industrial revolution, ie the last 150 years. That is about a 30% rise that never occurred during the preceeding half a million years, that has occured in the last 150 years. There is no explanation for this other than human activity. Only a complete fool would deny that everything humans consume releases CO2 in one way or another.

So the problem is not whether human Co2 emissions are a small percentage of total natural emissions, the problem is that human Co2 emissions, have no natural balance to soak them up, and that is what has caused a 30% increase in atmospheric Co2 in about 150 years.

For sake of argument...

If the above is true that there is no balance to soak up the human caused emmision activity...

It would seem that there is no solution other than to completely stop burning any and all fossil fuels.

Anything less is just a gesture NO?

So I have to ask...

#1 do you really see humankind doing away with our use of fossil fuels?

#2 do you really think a reduction in per capita use of fossil fuels is going to do much when you consider rising populations in the developing countries like China are adapting more and more to western ways of life such as autos and electric driven appliances?

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

If the above is true that there is no balance to soak up the human caused emmision activity...

It would seem that there is no solution other than to completely stop burning any and all fossil fuels.

Anything less is just a gesture NO?

So I have to ask...

#1 do you really see humankind doing away with our use of fossil fuels?

#2 do you really think a reduction in per capita use of fossil fuels is going to do much when you consider rising populations in the developing countries like China are adapting more and more to western ways of life such as autos and electric driven appliances?

Fellows

There is limited capability in the natural sinks to remove some of the CO2 we are using, about 40% of it goes into natural sinks, the rest into the atmosphere.

1. Why not? There is nuclear, renewables, ie solar, hydro, wind, and ofcourse there is the possibility that even if petroleum like products are still used, they need not be sourced from fossil fuels. 90% of petrochemicals can either be synthesized from Bio sources or new biochemicals made to have similar properties or uses as the oil based equivalent. Infact only about 4% of the oil that comes out of the ground ever gets used in petrochemicals, 70% apx is just burned as fuel. Interestingly, that 4% is worth about the same as a finished product as is the 70% that is burned. In the US last year, both bio and fuel derived from oil was worth about $380 billion each. BioTech is a rapidly expanding industry.

Nuclear is the best bet at the moment. The enviro-lobby is completely ignorant if it campaigns against it. Its safe enough and frankly all we have at the moment.

As i've said, Solar is now hitting 60% efficiency over just 15% a few yers ago. My point would be, that if we can spend trillions blowing shit up, we can spend the same installing solar on every house in the country.

Hydro-Wind etc are useful if the conditions are right and in the right application, but frankly wont ever be mass scale.

Alot of NIMBYs moan about everything. Fine. Turn off their electricity supply at 5pm because there is no capacity and see how long it takes them to change their mind and stop moaning.

2. That is precisely why we need to stop spending trillions blowing shit up and get the R&D done on alternative fuels. Your car can run from water. Infact everything can be run off water. There is a lot of it, and it doesn't have the dangerous environmental impact of fossil fuels.

I read that China is completing 2 coal powered powerstations every MONTH!!

Just because they are polluting doesn't give me or you a licence to pollute. We have the technology and the money to R&D hydrogen, water, solar, fusion etc. FFS lets get on with it! Then we can sell it back to them and we are all winners. I dont begrudge China, India et al making better lives for themselves if thats what their people want, and perhaps this is how they do it, but if we are in a position to do better, we should be doing it.

Lets be honest, by the end of the century, the US, Europe etc, is going to playing second fiddle to China, Russia, India wether we like it or not. Our only advantage at the moment is that we have a technological and economic advantage. Kiss this goodbye in 50 years. If we dont get on with it, we will be buying that technology from them and we will all be working in sweat shops to supply their citizens with Nike's for $5 an hour.

Put it this way, do you want your tax dollars being spent on maiming innocent defenseless children and adults in countries that have unfortunately got a questionable government or dictatorship OR spent on developing safe power - so that we dont have to kill children to get their countries oil, in which their dictatorship will rapidly crumble if we were not inadvertantly financing their terrorism, their corrupt state or the like???

If the above is true that there is no balance to soak up the human caused emmision activity...

It would seem that there is no solution other than to completely stop burning any and all fossil fuels.

Anything less is just a gesture NO?

So I have to ask...

#1 do you really see humankind doing away with our use of fossil fuels?

#2 do you really think a reduction in per capita use of fossil fuels is going to do much when you consider rising populations in the developing countries like China are adapting more and more to western ways of life such as autos and electric driven appliances?

Fellows

IMHO? No and no.

But it sure would be nice to see where this AGW "experiment" we humans are conducting might lead to and over what timeframes! \

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

There is limited capability in the natural sinks to remove some of the CO2 we are using, about 40% of it goes into natural sinks, the rest into the atmosphere.

1. Why not? There is nuclear, renewables, ie solar, hydro, wind, and ofcourse there is the possibility that even if petroleum like products are still used, they need not be sourced from fossil fuels.

Nuclear is the best bet at the moment. The enviro-lobby is completely ignorant if it campaigns against it. Its safe enough and frankly all we have at the moment.

As i've said, Solar is now hitting 60% efficiency over just 15% a few yers ago. My point would be, that if we can spend trillions blowing shit up, we can spend the same installing solar on every house in the country.

Hydro-Wind etc are useful if the conditions are right and in the right application, but frankly wont ever be mass scale.

Alot of NIMBYs moan about everything. Fine. Turn off their electricity supply at 5pm because there is no capacity and see how long it takes them to change their mind and stop moaning.

2. That is precisely why we need to stop spending trillions blowing shit up and get the R&D done on alternative fuels. Your car can run from water. Infact everything can be run off water. There is a lot of it, and it doesn't have the dangerous environmental impact of fossil fuels.

I read that China is completing 2 coal powered powerstations every MONTH!!

Just because they are polluting doesn't give me or you a licence to pollute. We have the technology and the money to R&D hydrogen, water, solar, fusion etc. FFS lets get on with it! Then we can sell it back to them and we are all winners. I dont begrudge China, India et al making better lives for themselves if thats what their people want, and perhaps this is how they do it, but if we are in a position to do better, we should be doing it.

Put it this way, do you want your tax dollars being spent on maiming innocent defenseless children and adults in countries that have unfortunately got a questionable government or dictatorship OR spent on developing safe power - so that we dont have to kill children to get their countries oil, in which their dictatorship will rapidly crumble if we were not inadvertantly financing their terrorism, their corrupt state or the like???

Hysteria, or somatization disorder, is a diagnostic label applied to a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often centered on a body part, most often on an imagined problem with that body part (disease is a common complaint). People who are "hysterical" often lose self-control due to the overwhelming fear.

Somatization disorder (also Briquet's disorder or, in antiquity, hysteria) is a psychiatric diagnosis applied to patients who chronicly and persistently complain of varied physical symptoms that have no identifiable physical origin. One common general etiological explanation is that internal psychological conflicts are unconsciously expressed as physical signs.

"Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

I agree with your edits also... We will be working for them if we do not act.

Who would ever think Fellows and MarcUK could agree !

Fellows

well, they are experiencing a massive economic boom the same as we did generations ago. If it had been the other way around, none of us would have listened while we were pulling ourselves into the modern world. Im afraid that while there is massive disparity in the world between the richest and the poorest, then we cannot simply deny them the same basic rights to life as we expect. They will industrialize up to the point we are at, and then they will experience all the same issues we are facing today.

When China et al reaches the same general level of wealth as we have, they will be putting out the scientists and technology that we are, and they will be concerned at their levels of pollution and will seek to reduce it. As will every other nation that reaches our modern world state.

Our task is to develop the technology so that we dont pollute and as we could be leaders in this field, we will naturally want to sell this tech to them so that when they are ready, they will not pollute either. Putting out fingers in our ears and doing nothing, because 'its not fair' is pathetic. Its not fair that your average Chinaman earns $10 a week. He is more concerned about a bowl of rice to feed his family, and rightly so, than worrying that his country is contributing to the sea-level flooding New Orleans in 50 years.

He has no choice, infact he does not know that he even has a choice or that there is an issue, but we do, and we should be doing something about it, and not acting like a bunch of 5 year olds complaining its not fair that Johnny got an extra scoop of ice-cream for tea.

"Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

I sure would like to see his theory and the relative magnitude of his 2040 "prediction."

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

"Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

The solar irradiance didn't begin to drop in the 1990's. It has been the same, within fractions of a percent since direct measurements began, which you might be suprised to hear was not that long ago. IIRC 1978.

What is predicted is that from the level of solar-flare activity at the moment is that the next 11 year cycle of solar flares will be recordbreakingly strong (2011) followed by a rapid decrease for the following cycle in 2022, because it is possible to predict the next batch of flare activity by the current batch. Of course there are many periodic cycles of the sun, your link expressed one of them, and the data batch doesn't go back long enough to say for absolute certainty.

Lack of solar activity means that we will be bombarded from space with more highly energetic cosmic particles,(as high solar activity blocks this)- which back in 1990 a dutch team suggested 'might' lead to increased cloud coverage. But as solar activity only accounts for about 0.1% of the energy reaching the earth from the sun, the effect from this on temperatures will be pretty insignificant.

Infact there is a sunspot developing at the moment, ill try to find the photo, but in essense the spot is the size of one of the large gasseous planets, when you see it, its just a pin-prick compared to the size of the solar disc, which is why in the grand scheme of things, sunspot activity does not have an effect on the amount of solar energy reaching us.

Now! the lack of, or increase of solar/extrasolar particles reaching us might have an effect on weather, but that is another story for another time!

The solar irradiance didn't begin to drop in the 1990's. It has been the same, within fractions of a percent since direct measurements began, which you might be suprised to hear was not that long ago. IIRC 1978.

What is predicted is that from the level of solar-flare activity at the moment is that the next 11 year cycle of solar flares will be recordbreakingly strong (2011) followed by a rapid decrease for the following cycle in 2022, because it is possible to predict the next batch of flare activity by the current batch. Of course there are many periodic cycles of the sun, your link expressed one of them, and the data batch doesn't go back long enough to say for absolute certainty.

Lack of solar activity means that we will be bombarded from space with more highly energetic cosmic particles,(as high solar activity blocks this)- which back in 1990 a dutch team suggested 'might' lead to increased cloud coverage. But as solar activity only accounts for about 0.1% of the energy reaching the earth from the sun, the effect from this on temperatures will be pretty insignificant.

Infact there is a sunspot developing at the moment, ill try to find the photo, but in essense the spot is the size of one of the large gasseous planets, when you see it, its just a pin-prick compared to the size of the solar disc, which is why in the grand scheme of things, sunspot activity does not have an effect on the amount of solar energy reaching us.

Now! the lack of, or increase of solar/extrasolar particles reaching us might have an effect on weather, but that is another story for another time!

Well since you mentioned it

I find the following quite interesting:

"The new understanding is that we (as a solar system) were not ever directly a part of the Milky Way.

If you go outside and look you will see that it is actually sideways in the night sky....

We are part of a smaller galaxy that the Milky Way has put the 'come hither' on and we are apparently going to actually turn and join with the Milky way after some 2 billion years of circling around it at a near right angle as part of our parent galaxy called the Sagittarius Dwarf.

Sagittarius Dwarf is now so stretched out that it has lost gravitational hold and cohesiveness to our solar system and we will finally join the "sideways in the sky" Milky Way for the first time in our history. Our solar system is apparently going to finally take a right angle turn for the first time in history and start going around in the Milky Way whirlpool. This is all newer information... and yes it appears to be fact. How fast we turn and exactly where and how fast the changes are going to happen are simply not predictable. We have never joined a new galaxy before as a solar system like this.

DISCOVERY OF JULY 20th 2006: The overall biggest contributing cause to Global Warming, and the melting of the polar icecaps of -- both -- Earth and Mars is actually caused by our arrival down into the brighter, more energetic equator region of the Milky Way galactic disc as we are coming in from deeper space.

CHANGES-- FROM THE TOP DOWN:

While the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cyclically charted by such scientists and researchers as quoted by Al Gore are powerful indicators, and even possible contributors to the unmistakable levels of climate and other changes, and pollution from the choices man has made are an increasing burden to the ecosystem of the planet, the larger cause of global warming by far is the first time in history event of the permanent merging of Earth and the Solar System with the higher energy state equatorial-orbital-disc region of the spiral armed Milky Way Galaxy.

"The new understanding is that we (as a solar system) were not ever directly a part of the Milky Way.

If you go outside and look you will see that it is actually sideways in the night sky....

We are part of a smaller galaxy that the Milky Way has put the 'come hither' on and we are apparently going to actually turn and join with the Milky way after some 2 billion years of circling around it at a near right angle as part of our parent galaxy called the Sagittarius Dwarf.

Sagittarius Dwarf is now so stretched out that it has lost gravitational hold and cohesiveness to our solar system and we will finally join the "sideways in the sky" Milky Way for the first time in our history. Our solar system is apparently going to finally take a right angle turn for the first time in history and start going around in the Milky Way whirlpool. This is all newer information... and yes it appears to be fact. How fast we turn and exactly where and how fast the changes are going to happen are simply not predictable. We have never joined a new galaxy before as a solar system like this.

DISCOVERY OF JULY 20th 2006: The overall biggest contributing cause to Global Warming, and the melting of the polar icecaps of -- both -- Earth and Mars is actually caused by our arrival down into the brighter, more energetic equator region of the Milky Way galactic disc as we are coming in from deeper space.

CHANGES-- FROM THE TOP DOWN:

While the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cyclically charted by such scientists and researchers as quoted by Al Gore are powerful indicators, and even possible contributors to the unmistakable levels of climate and other changes, and pollution from the choices man has made are an increasing burden to the ecosystem of the planet, the larger cause of global warming by far is the first time in history event of the permanent merging of Earth and the Solar System with the higher energy state equatorial-orbital-disc region of the spiral armed Milky Way Galaxy.

well in all the time I have been reading space stuff, I've not come across the idea that we are not part of the milky way, so I cant really comment.

It sounds intreguing, so I'll take a look, but I really had to contain my laughter when one of the points made is that the mystery of why the milky way is viewed at an angle to us has never been resolved quite amusing!!

Besides, if we weren't originally part of the milky way, and we are merging with it - how does that hold up in the creation theory 6000 year timelime???

well in all the time I have been reading space stuff, I've not come across the idea that we are not part of the milky way, so I cant really comment.

It sounds intreguing, so I'll take a look, but I really had to contain my laughter when one of the points made is that the mystery of why the milky way is viewed at an angle to us has never been resolved quite amusing!!

Besides, if we weren't originally part of the milky way, and we are merging with it - how does that hold up in the creation theory 6000 year timelime???

Well I believe unless proven otherwise that we are clearly part of the milky way galaxy.

btw the link to a cure blog is pure BS as is the quoted material in the above posting. I was trying to see how late it is over there in the UK and if you were still alert !

I found it to be comedy however!

you chose the worst time! Im strangely a night creature, If you want to get one over me, you need to try at 10am. I dont really 'wake up' till about 6pm most days. My collegees dispair!

Still, its a shame that if you say its BS, I get quite excited when science gets a radical overhaul. I just read the other day, that Loop Quantum Gravity predicts that the universe didn't ever have the big-bang as we know it and there was 'time' before what we would call zero time, ie it might be possible to determine what was hapenning before the big-bang!! How cool!!!

"The new understanding is that we (as a solar system) were not ever directly a part of the Milky Way.

If you go outside and look you will see that it is actually sideways in the night sky....

We are part of a smaller galaxy that the Milky Way has put the 'come hither' on and we are apparently going to actually turn and join with the Milky way after some 2 billion years of circling around it at a near right angle as part of our parent galaxy called the Sagittarius Dwarf.

Sagittarius Dwarf is now so stretched out that it has lost gravitational hold and cohesiveness to our solar system and we will finally join the "sideways in the sky" Milky Way for the first time in our history. Our solar system is apparently going to finally take a right angle turn for the first time in history and start going around in the Milky Way whirlpool. This is all newer information... and yes it appears to be fact. How fast we turn and exactly where and how fast the changes are going to happen are simply not predictable. We have never joined a new galaxy before as a solar system like this.

DISCOVERY OF JULY 20th 2006: The overall biggest contributing cause to Global Warming, and the melting of the polar icecaps of -- both -- Earth and Mars is actually caused by our arrival down into the brighter, more energetic equator region of the Milky Way galactic disc as we are coming in from deeper space.

CHANGES-- FROM THE TOP DOWN:

While the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cyclically charted by such scientists and researchers as quoted by Al Gore are powerful indicators, and even possible contributors to the unmistakable levels of climate and other changes, and pollution from the choices man has made are an increasing burden to the ecosystem of the planet, the larger cause of global warming by far is the first time in history event of the permanent merging of Earth and the Solar System with the higher energy state equatorial-orbital-disc region of the spiral armed Milky Way Galaxy.

The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun’s brightness. Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.

Next up, "Quasars found to be source of Earth's climate changes."

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Fellows, you can't possibly be serious about all the stuff you've posted in this thread.

Anyway, a post more pointedly saying the same thing as franksargent about the supposed 1992 poll

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell

That Gallup poll of scientists contradicted everything else I've seen so dramatically that I checked into it, and it appears to be bogus. Here's a wikipedia link discussing that poll, and here's another. It appears to be something that someone either made up or misinterpreted, and someone else cited it, etc.

There absolutely is a scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. Look through that wikipedia link for all the scientific organizations' statements on the matter.